Why would it be about anything else? It is like some people claiming that colonization was about helping Asia and Africa rather than pillaging their resources. US' foreign policy will always be about what is best for them, to expect anything else would be stupid.
Colonialism in the subcontinent thread
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Well the Brits gave you civilization you ungrateful wretches and the US have taken up their mantle to bestow, truth, justice and the American way on other ungrateful wretches.
Colonization is a great example of what I'm talking about. It was brutal, it was dirty, and it went spectacularly wrong in many, many countries. It was the clearest example of rapacious self-interest from the strong over the weak. And yet - to reduce it to the level of crude caricature, as you are doing, does history a disservice. Because the unpopular, politically incorrect truth is, colonization helped as much as it hurt, didn't it? In many countries, colonization was the best thing that ever happened to them. British institutions, British technology, British common law were tremendous leg-ups in the modernization of many, many countries - my own being one.
The net effect that America has had in the world is similar. It's not a popular thing to say, but the simple truth is the world needs a policeman. It has demonstrably acted many, many times - and I've cited the examples of Somalia, Haiti'94, and Kosovo as instances - when it had no self-interest at all beyond its commitments to R2P and similar geopolitical doctrines. Saying and thinking otherwise is trendy, but incorrect.
There is so much wrong with this post that I am not even going to reply.
Can you elaborate ?
I am going to leave the colonization part alone since that would take the thread off topic.
World may need a policeman but it is never going to get a just one. As I said previously, US foreign policy will always be about its self interest. I don't even think there is anything wrong with that. US is not playing a role of policeman when it can cherry pick couple of conflicts to play the role of a savior while turn a blind eye to countless others, much much worse in scale. Why didn't the policeman go into Sudan, which experienced one of the worst genocide of recent times? Or how about policeman's premier spy agency that has caused so much carnage in last century, facilitating civil wars, overthrowing democratically elected Govts and what not, all out of national interest. There are just a few examples of the flawed doctrine of allowing US as the sole super power the right to intervene in others' affairs. In an ideal world, the world's most powerful nation would exert its power fairly and uniformly, but that has never been the case or ever will be. US will continue to intervene in cases related to its interest using any excuse possible, or like Iraq showed manufacture excuse if needed, while ignoring what it and its allies are upto.
No it doesn't - it was possible to do all the things you mention without forking over the native population (and continuing to fork 'em by economic rather than military power to this day)
Yet more than half of the casualties in the Soviet Union were by their own commisars, friendly fire and civilian execution because they dared to take 'one step back'.
With that last statement, you are aware the seeds of WW2 were planted in 1933 right? And that the Sino-Japanese war had started half a decade before Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Because they did it via the most savage disgusting brutal way possible. We talk about how Hitler's Germany systematically tried to kill races, about squadron 731 and the Nanking massacre, yet why the hell does nobody speak of the fact that two million German women were raped by Russian soldiers drunk off vodka after the battle of Berlin? During the 'liberation' of Manchuria over two hundred thousand Chinese women were raped and 50,000 landowners were shot by firing squads. The process was they demanded Chinese farmers their houses and flats to reside in and also their horses for military use. If they refused they were shot on the spot just like that.
Atleast Germany nor the allies treated their so called 'Allies' in this respect.
Sorry Pete, but this really made me laugh out loud. In the middle of the bloody library.Oh yes, you could, that's true. You could have sailed over half the world and set up an NHS for us for free, sure. You could have built flats, and public schools, and universities, and factories, for us for free, maybe taking a coconut or two, or maybe some shiny fishbones or seashells, in payment. And you seriously think, do you, that there was the faintest possibility of something like this happening in the 19th century?
Look, there are large Irish and Indian populations on the Caf. I'm not going to pretend I know more about their history than they do, that they are wrong to have... somewhat jaundiced views of their colonial experiences. But I do know more about my history than a lot of people - very obviously and clearly including you - do. And what I know is this: we were a village of loincloth-wearing fishermen when you showed up in 1819. We were a metropolis of millions when you left. And when you guys went broke and withdrew "east of Suez" in - what was it, '67? - we blew a bloody gasket, pointing out that you promised to stay for longer, extracting concession after concession from you, military trainers, economic investments, etc. To allow you to leave. Surprising, isn't it, to find that the world doesn't quite fit the worldview you have? We're not alone. Brunei was similar. Malaysia was similar. Hong Kong was similar. American-colonized Philippines was similar. Allied-occupied Japan (post '45) was similar.
I spent six years of my life in a boys' school consciously modeling itself on the Eton/Harrow public-school model, sir and ma'am and rugby and cricket. I then spent two years in a military that is the direct descendant of the Volunteer militia the Brits set up for us before Independence (Merdeka), which still continues to use British ranks (leftenant and so on) and terminology to this day. I'm now studying the British common law you guys left behind, and which we have become a pretty big regional litigation hub on the strength of. One day - far, far in the future, if all goes well - I have a dream of entering politics, getting a place in our Westminster-modelled Parliament. I know what I'm talking about when I say that there were success stories of colonization, that it sometimes went well, that it's certainly far from the simplistic, black-and-white, evil-white-men-exploiting-innocent-natives narrative you believe in. Do you?
I believe you are referring to colonialism rather than colonization. Do you know the difference?
Please understand that before arguing your point. The places you discussed (if I remember correctly) were not colonized.
"I know nothing about the subject at hand therefore I'm just going to say i'm right because I'm an idiot and can't put forward an argument'
That's just civilian repression by the Soviet Union, at a grand total of 7.6million. That's already 1/3 of the entire casualties of the Soviet Union suffered alone due to civilian repression and mass slaughter of ethnic minorities.
Now, you have this:
Now you have these sources from Soviet historians.
So kindly shut the hell up and don't comment on things you know absolutely nothing about.
Fair enough, great spot, and thanks for the correction, as I was speaking loosely. My point still stands though, in the context of the conversation, which is pretty clearly about colonialism.
No worries - I wanted to make sure you knew what you were arguing. I disagree with your point very strongly, but am at work so I can't type out a big response.
IMO - colonialism didn't do nearly as much good as made out. Using India as an example is poor and wrong IMO.
I... didn't use India as an example.
In fact, I specifically cited India and Ireland as places I wasn't discussing or including in my point, because I was very much aware it would cause offence to suggest their (your?) colonial periods were somehow happy or prosperous times for them (you?).I don't believe colonialism was, in the sum, a good thing, or even a net positive, seen globally. I'm well aware that we're very much exceptions to the rule. I'm just irritated by a blunt, shortsighted view of it as always bad, just as I'm irritated by blunt, shortsighted views of American actions as always bad and anyone who stands up to America as being ipso facto the good guys.
ETA: Looking back at the original post, I can see that the language was inelegant, though, so apologies for any confusion. It was written in one shot in a rush. I'm definitely not suggesting colonialism in India, Ireland, or the broad majority of places was a good or positive thing.
So you want to cite your personal story as a counterbalance to the millions of native North Americans, South American indians, Africans and Asians brutalised, exploited and murdered.
Alright, dude. I can see you're not really interested in the whole "reasoned debate" thing, let's move on. Good result, by the way.Oh come on.
Introduction of mechanized industry and collective workforce hugely raising economic output.
Introduction to a proper governing system when there previously was none adding with the benefits of a judical system as well as a system of laws.
Hugely improved infrastructure in most colonies. The British built the largest rail network in India at the time.
Unifying states when previously deemed impossible. Ie the subcontinent.
Giving primitive undeveloped nations access to Western technology and medicine, saving many lives. The British tried to implement sewers in India but ultimately failed due to the whole scope and size.
Schools and leaving behind education systems. You know the best schools in India, Singapore, China etc are all called things like "St Stephens College", "British school of Commerce" etc etc
Entire new markets opened for colonial regions. British textiles, Steel, Furniture etc could be quickly and efficiently distributed to all of its colonies at a undercut price.
You look at the economies of the former British/French colonies that were actually properly governed and a system implemented and they have all flourished. China bases it's whole Economic model on Hong Kong, a former colony of Britain.
India, Singapore, Canada, Australia, China, Japan etc are solely where they are now because, not in spite of, colonial investment.
Or in China and Japan's case, western influence.
I'm with Pete on this one mate. Your individual experience is not representative of the majority... But why are we arguing this in the Ukraine thread??
Where are you from?
the colonial powers did not go into those countries to improve the lives of those people. They went to exploit and take whatever resources they could whatever the cost...because they felt they could and because Asians,Africans,South Americans and Native Americans were a 'lesser' people. The progress of those countries since is not the point.
EDIT: this debate was done in the Colonization thread....
EDIT: this debate was done in the Colonization thread....
For arguments sake I was born in UK but my entire ancestory and family are chinese, my father was a prominent politician in the Chinese Communist party before being ousted and forced to seek political asylum in the UK.
I'm quite fair for both sides of the argument.
Course they didn't. But goodness was done as a byproduct of selfish intentions. If there was no colonialization countries like India/China/Japan would still be in the 19th century or probably might not even exist as political states.
My indian friend came up with this rather crude but effective analogy. Britain was a rich handsome arrogant and intelligent man who raped the poor village girl when she didn't give him what he wanted. The village girl became pregnant and gave birth to a child who later on became rich handsome and intelligent and made his mother proud.
However rape is still rape, that I don't deny. But goodness came out of it, whether it overweighed the bad aspects of brutality murder etc is a whole different debate that I myself haven't drawn a proper conclusion to due to lack of tangible research in that field.
My point right now is no matter the intentions or the goal, benefits did come as a side effect which cannot be ignored.
WTF
That is a horrible analogy. Insinuating that poor Indian village girl gave birth to a child who because of British genes became rich, handsome and intelligent. Made his mother proud indeed.
This debate has been done in a previous colonization thread. Just reopen that or a new one rather this diverting this one.
Fair enough about the offtopic-ness of this discussion, so this'll be my last word on the matter. Again, though, I feel you've misunderstood my point. My personal life experiences are completely and purely illustrative only - the main point, as I said (and TR has pointed out), many countries, besides my own, have had similar outcomes of colonial or quasi-colonial experiences (to repeat, examples: Malaysia, HK, Japan, Brunei, as well as Singapore.) I was never in any way suggesting my personal life story made me competent to denigrate the experience of whole other countries - I have no idea where that comes from, perhaps a misreading of my post. I'm tremendously hesitant to bring this point up with Indian nationals, but with respect, the Indian experience of British Raj - an unpleasant, atrocious, unedifying one, to be clear - does not give you a monopoly over the ability to make judgments about the impact of colonialism, any more than the Singaporean experience gives me such a monopoly.
That was, from start to finish, the only point I was ever making. You simply cannot look at a rich, multifaceted historical phenomenon taking place across several centuries and several continents, and handwave it off with crude caricatures - "Oh, colonization was terrible. Horrible white men exploiting natives." That quite simply wasn't our experience. That quite simply wasn't the experience many other countries have had.
And so it is with the Ukraine. A lot of people are coming in here and basically TL;DRing the mountains and mountains of evidence of Russian aggression - they're just essentially handwaving all that away with a crude caricature - "Oh, America is up to its old tricks, invading other countries. Goody for brave old Putin."
Nothing ever is that simple. And with that out of the way, do let's get back to the Ukraine.
WTF
That is a horrible analogy. Insinuating that poor Indian village girl gave birth to a child who because of British genes became rich, handsome and intelligent. Made his mother proud indeed.
This debate has been done in a previous colonization thread. Just reopen that or a new one rather this diverting this one.
Well to be fair, the whole current Indian system and industry is practically based entirely on British systems.
Education system, Laws, Governing system, democracy, infrastructure is basically entirely British or adapted from the British. Some some 'gene' inheritance is there.
anyway, you're correct in that this is the Ukraine thread.
"rape is still rape"
end of.
end of.
Nobodies arguing about intention of the moral background behind it!
The fact remains no matter badly the British tried to screw people over they, accidently or whatnot managed to provide good things to those people.
@Raoul can you diver these posts to a new thread or something? I'd rather this be on topic. It's an interesting argument (that I disagree with), but there's no need for it to be in the Ukraine thread.
I'll second that.
This is one of the worst analogies I have ever heard. If your "friend" and you genuinely thought India was a "poor village girl" at the time, you don't know your history remotely well.
Seriously, at best that is stupid. Beyond that, it is insensitive and for lack of a better way of saying it, completely fecked up.
India did not exist as an entity before the western powers came. It was a huge bunch of squabbling warlords each with individual wealth. Oh come on if these subcontinental were not 'poor' (I'm using poor as more than a monetary definition here, ie technology, laws, governing education etc) then they would not have been subjugated by an army of civil servants.
Why would you take offence to it? I'm assuming you are Indian. Many in the past and many will in the future refer to what Britain did in the subcontinent as 'The rape of the subcontinent', if we want to draw modern parallels, many people have described (even Chinese) the current Chinese neo-colonialism of Africa as 'the drugging and rape of Africa'. Sure, it's a very vulgar and crude analogy but it's very commonly used.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about in the first paragraph mate. The only part I would agree with is that India didn't exist as an entity. The rest, especially the last part is rubbish. Move it to a new thread, and I'll be happy to discuss (and refute) your viewpoint, but no point doing it in the Ukraine thread.
This isn't his Facebook wall. If you want to make a thread in the CE, make sure people know what it's about. You started well with the thread title, at least.
-->
-->
@The regulator
you are correct that India as an entity did not exist before the so called "Western Powers" came. I would challenge you to prove that India is any more united now than it was then though.
I'll start with bits and pieces.
Firstly, calling India (at the time) "a bunch of squabbling warlords" is pretty ignorant. Which kingdoms are you referring to?
Secondly, they were not "subjugated by an army of civil servants" - do you have any idea how it played out?
Thirdly - the reason that the "West" had been trying to reach India for ages was its wealth - calling it poor at the time is silly.
you are correct that India as an entity did not exist before the so called "Western Powers" came. I would challenge you to prove that India is any more united now than it was then though.
I'll start with bits and pieces.
Firstly, calling India (at the time) "a bunch of squabbling warlords" is pretty ignorant. Which kingdoms are you referring to?
Secondly, they were not "subjugated by an army of civil servants" - do you have any idea how it played out?
Thirdly - the reason that the "West" had been trying to reach India for ages was its wealth - calling it poor at the time is silly.
I'm not trying to be condescending or anything. I'm genuinely trying to see your viewpoint here.
British colonists didn't leave India in a united state. It took a decade of work by Indians to unite it to a single nation. Whatever development the colonists did was purely for their own interests.
Imo the best thing that came out of British colonialism was they taught us English language.
Bugger, I thought the thread title was a proposition. I mean, we've done it once, we could do it again.
What a load of gibberish.
For one no was an entity back then like it is today. was uk a country back then like it is now ?
secondly India's natural border has always been the indus river beyond which it was known as hindustan by the empires of that period even though there may have been separate kingdoms which the culture of the subcontinent was distinct than west asia and south east asia and thus it is a single entity. And India has been ruled by a central administration multiple times before the west stepped in. So feck off with your patronizing tone that uk created the entity known as India, infact you partitioned it along religious lines so that you had a base of operation in pakistan to counter the soviets in west asia and managed to murder more than the nazis whilst here.
For one no was an entity back then like it is today. was uk a country back then like it is now ?
secondly India's natural border has always been the indus river beyond which it was known as hindustan by the empires of that period even though there may have been separate kingdoms which the culture of the subcontinent was distinct than west asia and south east asia and thus it is a single entity. And India has been ruled by a central administration multiple times before the west stepped in. So feck off with your patronizing tone that uk created the entity known as India, infact you partitioned it along religious lines so that you had a base of operation in pakistan to counter the soviets in west asia and managed to murder more than the nazis whilst here.
Last edited:
I'm keen, once we fix that it gives us a great launchpad to fix the middle east too.
In one more of your posts you mention the British introducing justice system and laws to Indian people.. I think that is a very patronizing attitude.. We definitely had laws and courts before the British came..
As far as educational institutes go, we would have developed new ones even if the British hadn't showed up..
Introducing us to English though is one of the good things of colonial rule..
As far as educational institutes go, we would have developed new ones even if the British hadn't showed up..
Introducing us to English though is one of the good things of colonial rule..